s 

(A 


HE 

2757 
W05 


BANCROFT 
LIBRARY 

•o 

THE  LIBRARY 

OF 
THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 


BANCROFT 
KEWTFIELD 


A  SIMPLE  and  SURE 
:       SOLUTION 

OF  THE 

TRANSPORTATION 
PROBLEM 


BY 

Judge  Peter  S.jGrosscup 

OF  THE 

U.  S.  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals 


THE  ONLY  EFFICIENT  PLAN   PROPOSED 

ABSOLUTELY    JUST    TO    SHIPPERS   AND    CARRIERS 


INDORSED  BY  THE  LEADING  MANUFACTURERS, 
SHIPPERS  AND  CONSUMERS  THROUGHOUT  THE 
UNITED  STATES 


FREIGHT  PUBLISHING  CO. 

PUBLISHERS    OF 

FREIGHT,  THE  SHIPPERS'  FORUM 

116  NASSAU  STREET,   NEW  YORK  CITY 


WHY  THE  GROSSCUP  PLAN  IS   THE  BEST. 


No  Business  Man  in  This   Country    Can    Afford    to    Be   "  Too   Busy "   to    Neglect 
Reading  This  Concise  Statement — The  Subject  Vitally  Concerns  Every  Manu- 
facturer, Shipper,  Consignee  and  Jobber — Here  Is  the  Freight  Rate  Leg- 
islation Situation  in  a  Nutshell— It  Is  a  Duty  You  Owe  to 
Yourself  to  Read  This  Carefully. 

"~FHE  Esch-Townsend  Bill,  which  provided  for  the  placing  in  the 
hands  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  the  power  to 
name  a  new  freight  rate  found  by  the  Commission  to  be  unjustly  ex- 
cessive or  unreasonable,  and  which  passed  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives last  winter,  is  dead.  It  died  when  the  Fifty-ninth  Congress  ex- 
pired in  March,  1905.  It  was  an  ill-considered  and  unwise  measure, 
and  suited  no  one.  If  it  had  passed  Congress  it  would  have  been  of 
no  possible  help  to  shippers.  Under  a  mistaken  impression,  and  as 
it  was  the  only  measure  before  the  country  at  the  time,  it  was  in- 
dorsed by  some  shippers,  but  was  vigorously  opposed  by  other  ship- 
pers and  consignees  and  by  the  entire  railroad  world.  Had  it  passed, 
the  railroads  would  have  fought  it  on  constitutional  grounds,  if  on 
no  other,  and  it  would  have  been  years  before  the  question  of  its  con- 
stitutionality alone  was  settled. 

When  nothing  better  offered,  FREIGHT,  THE  SHIPPERS'  FORUM, 
as  the  recognized  mouthpiece  of  the  great  manufacturing  and  ship- 
ping public  of  the  United  States,  advocated  legislation  along  the  lines 
of  the  Quarles-Cooper  Bill  (in  some  of  its  provisions  similar  to  the 
Esch-Townsend  Bill),  but  as  there  is  no  chance  of  such  legis- 
lation being  enacted,  it  is  now  advocating  the  adoption  of  the 
plan  put  forth  recently  by  Judge  Peter  S.  Grosscup  to  settle  the 
transportation  problem,  as  FREIGHT  is  convinced  that  this  plan  will 
actually  give  immediate  relief  to  shippers,  and  will  entirely  do  away 
with  the  protracted  and  fruitless  hearings  before  the  Commission, 
which  now  make  the  administration  of  the  Interstate  Commerce 
Law  practically  ineffectual.  In  other  words,  the  Grosscup  plan  is  a 
short  cut  to  justice.  The  proposition  briefly  is  this : 

Create  a  transportation  department  of  the  Government,  head- 
ed by  a  live,  aggressive  man,  and  give  to  this  secretary  or  com- 
missioner the  best  assistants  (some  of  them  taken  from  the  rail- 
road ranks)  the  country  can  afford.  This  department  is  to  have 
the  sole  duty  of  investigating,  arbitrating  and  prosecuting  all  com- 
plaints of  discrimination,  unjust  rates  and  unfair  practices  of  every 
description  by  the  railroads,  and  if  unable  to  settle  disputes  be- 
tween shippers  and  carriers  informally,  is  to  present  the  com- 


BANCROFT  L/ 


plaints  at  once  to  a  special  court  of  transportation,  to  be  created,  //  L  2 
the  judges  of  which  will  be  required  to  devote  their  entire  time  to 
traffic  questions.  The  judges  will  sit  together  in  Washington 
and  separately  throughout  the  country,  so  that  complaints  will 
be  received  and  acted  upon  with  the  least  possible  delay.  The 
department  of  transportation,  acting  for  the  shipper,  will  prose- 
cute the  case.  The  shipper  will  be  put  to  no  expense  for  coun- 
sel. The  only  appeal  from  this  special  court  will  lie  to  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  the  United  States,  and  then  solely  on  questions 
of  law. 

It  is  proper  to  say  that  opponents  of  the  Grosscup  plan  declare  that 
it  would  give  the  legislative  power  to  the  proposed  court,  and 
this,  it  is  claimed,  would  be  in  violation  of  the  Constitu- 
tion. That  this  view  is  erroneous  is  most  plainly  and  convincingly  set 
forth  by  Judge  Grosscup  on  pages  10,  n  and  12. 

Under  the  present  procedure  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commis- 
sion, at  the  request  of  a  shipper  or  on  its  own  motion,  may  institute 
an  inquiry  of  complaints  of  unreasonable  rates  or  unjust  discrimina- 
tion, and  if  it  finds  that  the  carrier  has  violated  the  law,  it  may  order 
the  defendant  road  to  cease  its  unlawful  practices,  but  it  has  no 
power  to  enforce  its  decisions.  The  only  method  allowed  under  the 
law  is  for  it  to  apply  to  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States  to 
compel  the  carrier  to  obey  the  Commission's  decision.  The  hearings 
before  the  Commission  frequently  take  many  months,  and  usually 
considerably  more  than  a  year  elapses  from  the  time  of  filing  of  the 
complaint  before  the  Commission  renders  its  decision.  Then  if  the 
case  goes  to  the  Circuit  Court  a  large  part  of  the  testimony  taken 
before  the  Commission  is  gone  over  again,  and  much  new  evidence  is 
generally  submitted  by  the  defendant  railroad,  so  that  in  some  cases 
it  is  six  or  seven  years  before  a  final  determination  is  reached;  the 
average  time  consumed,  in  such  circumstances,  is  three  or  four  years. 

Even  if  power  were  given  to  the  Commission  to  enforce  its  de- 
cisions and  to  fix  freight  rates,  which  would  be  the  actual  result  under 
the  Esch-Townsend  Bill  or  any  similar  measure,  it  should  be  remem- 
bered that  the  railroads  would  still  have  the  constitutional  right  to 
appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  Commission  should  they  believe 
that  the  new  rates  named  would  be  confiscatory  —  deprive  them  of 
property  without  due  process  of  law  —  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  the 
railroads  would  fight  every  decision  of  the  Commission  along  such 
lines  to  the  court  of  last  resort,  and  by  means  of  injunction  proceed- 
ings would  still  make  it  impossible  for  the  shipper  to  obtain  relief  for 
years.  Every  case  in  which  the  rights  of  a  citizen  or  corporation  are 
involved  must  ultimately  go  to  the  courts.  The  Grosscup  plan  takes 
the  complaint  at  once  to  the  courts  and  will  afford  relief  to  shippers 
within  a  few  months. 

The  agitation  to  remedy  existing   conditions    has    extended    over 


seven  or  eight  years,  and  what  has  been  the  result?  Nothing.  What 
shippers  want  is  something  accomplished,  something  done.  Shippers 
want  to  know  that  when  they  suffer  from  injustice  on  the  part  of  the 
common  carriers  they  will  obtain  speedy  relief.  As  Judge  Grosscup 
concisely  sums  up  the  situation: 

"The  core  of  the  evil  as  things  stand  at  present  is  that  nothing  is 
done.  My  suggestion  is  only  this:  Set  into  motion  machinery  that  will 
be  fair  to  the  public  and  the  railroads,  and  thus  do  something  toward 
giving  the  country  equal  conditions  and  fair  rates.  Such  machinery 
— a  department  to  investigate  and  prosecute,  and  a  court  to  decide — 
would  give  the  shipper  what  he  has  "not  now:  a  quick  apprehension 
by  a  competent  department  of  any  given  wrong  and  a  speedy  adjudi- 
cation and  rectification  of  it  by  an  impartial  and  competent  tribunal. 
Such  machinery  would  give  the  country  what  it  has  not  now — ade- 
quacy, intelligence  and  uniformity  in  rate  regulation.  With  the  right 
man  at  the  head  of  the  department,  with  the  right  judges  in  the 
court,  there  need  be  no  fear  on  the  part  of  shippers  that  the  plan  will 
be  inefficient,  and  no  fear  on  the  part  of  the  carriers  that  it  will  work 
injustice,  and  that  is  all  that  either  party  in  this  discussion  has  the 
right  to  expect." 

The  Grosscup  plan  is  a  simple  and  entirely  feasible  proposition, 
and  is  the  only  efficient  and  sure  solution  of  the  transportation  prob- 
lem thus  far  advanced  by  anyone.  It  is  fair  to  the  shippers  and  fair 
to  the  carriers.  It  deserves  and  is  receiving  the  support  of  leading 
manufacturers,  producers,  shippers  and  consignees  of  the  country.  The 
following  pages  are  fully  worth  the  most  careful  and  painstaking 
study  of  every  business  man  in  the  United  States. 

If  there  is  anything  in  the  Grosscup  plan  you  do  not  fully  un- 
derstand, write  to  the  Editor  of  FREIGHT,  THE  SHIPPERS' 
FORUM. 


A  Simple  and  Sure  Solution 


OF  THE 


TRANSPORTATION   PROBLEM 

V 

By  JUDGE   PETER  S.  GROSSCUP, 

Of  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals 


Introduction. 

WHATEVER  may  be  its  legal  status,  a  policy  of  discrimination 
that  gives  to  one  set  of  persons  in  a  community  rates  that  are 
refused  to  the  balance  of  that  community,  or  to  certain  communities 
rates  that  are  refused  to  other  communities,  is  a  policy  of  injustice, 
unjust  both  to  the  persons  and  communities  discriminated  against 
and  unjust  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  as  an  entirety. 

It  is  none  the  less  unjust  that  the  means  used  to  accomplish  the 
discrimination  may  have  been  indirect.  Secret  rebates  are  as  unjust 
as  direct  differences  in  rates.  Arrangements  by  which  the  private 
cars  of  a  particular  shipper  are  hauled  at  a  reduction  that  substantially 
overmeasures  the  capital  invested  by  the  shipper  irr  such  cars,  and 
arrangements  to  divide  rates  with  shippers,  who  pretend  to  be  oper- 
ating independent  railroads  that  in  fact  are  only  switches,  in  a  ratio 
not  measured  by  legitimate  switch  charges — all  these,  and  all  other 
devices  of  their  kind,  are  equally  unjust,  for  the  injustice  of  the  thing, 
whether  it  be  accomplished  directly  or  by  circumlocution,  is  in  the 
fact  that  one  set  of  shippers  are  thus  enabled  to  get  their  goods  into 
a  market  at  a  cost  that  competitive  shippers  cannot  obtain. 

The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has  held  that  it  is  not 
discrimination  within  the  meaning  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Law 
to  charge  the  big  shipper  a  rate  less  than  the  little  shipper.  I  know 
the  argument  on  which  that  is  founded,  and  I  appreciate  its  strength. 
It  is  true  that  it  costs  less  per  ton  to  carry  a  large  bulk  than  a  small 
bulk.  It  is  true  that  a  less  percentage  of  profit  can  be  reasonably 
charged  to  the  wholesaler  than  to  the  retailer.  But  these  arguments 
made  in  behalf  of  discrimination  miss  the  mark,  miss  the  whole  core 
of  the  subject. 

In  this  country  there  is  no  such  thing  as  size  to  a  business  man. 


The  man  of  little  size  expects  to  get  big.  He  has  a  right  to  get  big. 
He  has  a  right  to  have  the  atmosphere  of  equal  opportunity  and 
equal  conditions  in  which  to  grow,  and  excepting,  of  course,  some 
unit,  such  as  a  ton  or  a  car,  the  charge  ought  to  be  the  same  for  the 
little  as  for  the  big  shipper. 

I  say,  as  the  law  now  stands  on  that  subject,  what  is  permitted 
under  the  law  is  an  unjust  thing  and  ought  to  be  corrected  by  law. 

Now  with  this  law  on  the  subject  of  rebates,  both  direct  and 
indirect,  and  this  amendment  to  the  law  upon  the  subject  of  dis- 
crimination, governed  by  the  size  of  shipments  or  the  amount  that 
each  shipper  is  giving  to  the  railroads  yearly,  it  seems  to  me  that 
the  present  law  is  pretty  full  and  competent  to  meet  the  conditions. 
I  do  not  believe  that  we  need  much  new  prohibitive  legislation.  We 
have  on  our  statute  books  already  ample  provision  against  rebates, 
except  perhaps  for  some  amendments  on  the  subject  of  discrimina- 
tion between  those  who  ship  on  a  large  scale  and  those  who  ship  on 
a  small  scale.  I  do  not  believe  we  need  much,  if  any,  legislation  on 
the  subject  of  reasonableness  of  rates.  The  present  Interstate  Com- 
merce Act  in  one  of  its  very  first  sections  provides  that  all  rates  shall 
be  reasonable  and  just.  And  it  seems  to  me  that  the  present  law  as 
it  now  stands  is  able  to  meet  the  question  of  the  unreasonableness  of 
rates.  What  is  the  law  as  it  now  stands?  Upon  a  complaint  being 
made  to  the  Circuit  Court  that  a  rate  is  unreasonable  the  court,  if  it 
finds  that  the  rate  is  unreasonable,  may  enter  an  order  finding  such 
rate  unreasonable,  and  thereafter  the  railroad  company  is  not  at  lib- 
erty to  charge  that  rate. 

Before  the  Circuit  Court  can  find  a  rate  unreasonable  it  must 
first  find,  as  a  postulate,  what  is  a  reasonable  rate,  so  that  the  courts 
under  the  present  law  have  not  simply  to  find  judicially  what  rate  is 
unreasonable,  but  to  find  a  postulate  to  that  judicial  determination 
what  rate  would  be  reasonable.  And  I  take  it  that  in  any  given  case 
where  the  court  declared  that  the  rate  complained  of  was  unreason- 
able, and  that  the  given  named  rate  was  reasonable,  it  would  not 
be  the  policy,  it  could  not  be  the  policy  of  the  railroads  of  this  coun- 
try to  fly  in  the  face  of  that  judgment  of  the  court.  I  take  it  for 
granted  that  the  railroad  companies  would  not  on  the  morrow  charge 
a  rate  other  than  that  pronounced  by  the  court  to  be  reasonable;  for 
if  they  did,  such  charge  would  subject  them  to  immediate  reprosecu- 
tion  for  the  same  offense  for  which  the  company  had  been  tried  the 
day  before. 

Thus,  through  its  power  to  determine  that  a  given  rate  is  unrea- 
sonable, the  court  has  practically  the  judicial  power  to  deternfine 
what  rate  is  reasonable  and  to  enforce  that  power. 

The  core  of  the  evil  is  that  as  things  now  stand  nothing  is  done. 
In  my  judgment  the  reason  of  this  is,  not  so  much  the  difficulty  of 
the  law  as  it  is  the  difficulty  of  its  administration.  One  of  the  reasons 


is  the  incompetency,  the  total  incompetency  of  the  Circuit  Court  to 
pass  upon  that  question.  What  is  the  daily  life  of  a  Circuit  Court 
judge?  One  day  he  is  exploring  the  intricacies  of  a  patent  case,  fol- 
lowing it  through  all  its  meanderings  to  its  incubation  away  back  in 
some  inventor's  brain.  Another  day  he  is  hearing  a  personal  injury 
case,  with  his  sympathies  in  rigid  control  lest  they  should  outweigh 
his  judgment.  On  another  day  he  is  hearing  some  customs  case, 
determining  whether  the  particular  goods  under  consideration  come 
within  this  or  within  some  other  classification  of  the  law.  Another 
day  he  is  pursuing  the  meanderings  of  some  chancery  case.  Every 
day  brings  up  ^some  new  subject  covering  some  wide  area  upon 
which  he  has  to  be  specially  educated  for  the  day's  judgment. 

Now  call  him  from  this  judgment  seat  to  determine  a  question 
that  turns,  not  upon  the  particular  rate  that  is  laid  before  him,  but 
which  must  take  in  the  whole  horizon  of  the  country's  commerce 
— that  is  as  perplexing,  as  confusing,  as  intricate  as  the  wire  fences 
that  the  Russians  put  around  their  fortifications  in  the  Far  East  to 
keep  out  the  Japanese.  Call  him  to  take  out  of  its  place  with  the 
judicial  forceps  one  of  this  class  of  cases,  as  the  watchmaker  would 
take  out  a  wheel  or  a  peg  from  a  watch.  It  is  a  thing  he  can't  do 
without  taking  out  the  whole  inside  of  the  whole  rate  or  transporta- 
tion system;  call  him  to  decide  that  question,  and  you  will,  submit 
one  of  the  greatest,  the  most  perplexing,  the  most  difficult  questions 
to  a  man  who  has  had  no  education,  no  vision  of  the  subject  upon 
which  he  is  expected  to  rule.  Thus  I  say  that  the  Circuit  Court  is 
an  incompetent  court. 

In  the  nation  there  resides  the  reserve  power  of  supervision  and 
control — a  power  that  the  nation  must  exercise  in  the  interest  of 
equal  citizenship.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  Interstate  Commerce 
Commission,  either  as  at  present  organized  or  as  it  could  be  or- 
ganized, is  a  public  body  to  whom  we  should  give  this  great  power. 
The  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  from  its  very  inception  has 
attempted  to  follow  what  it  regarded  as  its  judicial  functions,  rather 
than  its  administrative  functions.  And  this  difficulty  is  inherent  in 
the  situation.  One  thing  is  as  axiomatic  as  the  Government  itself, 
from  which  no  popular  Government  can  escape — and  that  is,  that  the 
man  who  inquires  and  prosecutes  ought  not  to  be  the  judge,  and  that 
the  man  who  sits  in  judgment  ought  not  to  be  the  man  who  inquires 
or  prosecutes.  Would  it  be  right  of  me,  having  enjoined  some  of 
these  railroads  from  giving  rebates  or  the  different  trusts  under  the 
Sherman  Anti-Trust  Act,  to  go  out  and  hunt  up  instances  of  the  vio- 
lation of  that  injunction?  The  moment  that  I  get  into  the  work  of 
limiting  up  proof  I  destroy  my  equilibrium  and  poise  as  a  judge. 

The  judge  who  tries  to  remain  a  judge  becomes  an  inefficient  and 
unsuccessful  prosecutor;  and  the  prosecutor  who  tries  to  be  an  effi- 
cjent  and  a  successful  prosecutor  unfits  himself  at  that  instant  to  be 


a  judge.  The  two  functions  are  incompatible  and  should  be  sep- 
arated. They  were  separated  in  the  Interstate  Commerce  Act.  The 
Commission  was  looked  upon  by  the  framers  of  that  act  as  a  board 
of  inquiry,  and,  having  made  inquiry,  the  board  to  prosecute.  The 
Circuit  Court  was  looked  upon  as  the  power  to  judge.  But  for  rea- 
sons I  have  named  the  commission  has  failed.  For  the  reasons  I 
have  named  the  court  has  failed. 

The    Plan. 

I  would  put  in  the  place  of  the  present  Commission  some  depart- 
ment of  the  Government,  like  the  Comptroller  of  the^Currency,  like  the 
Secretary  or  Commissioner  of  Corporations — some  executive,  ready, 
mobile,  active  department  of  the  Government.  Let  a  department  of 
the  Government  be  created — at  least  a  bureau — whose  sole  duty  it 
would  be  to  see  that  the  railroads  obey  the  law;  which  would  feel 
that  its  sole  duty  was  not  to  judge  but  to  find  out;  not  to  adjudicate, 
but  to  complain;  not  to  sit  on  a  bench,  but  to  go  out  and  look  up 
where  complaints  had  been  made  by  citizens  that  a  wrong  was  being 
done  to  them  or  to  their  community.  Give  to  that  department 
the  aid  of  the  ablest  men  that  can  be  found  in  the  country.  One  of 
the  great  difficulties  in  public  life  is  that  the  public  does  not  compete 
with  the  corporation  in  getting  the.  best  brains  that  the  country  pos- 
sesses. In  pursuit  of  such  men  I  would  go  into  the  railroad  ranks. 
I  know  railroad  men  just  as  public  spirited,  just  as  impartial  and  ten 
times  as  able  as  I  am,  who,  for  a  reasonable  salary  and  a  safe  tenure 
could  be  detached  from  their  present  occupations  and  made  servants 
of  the  Government.  In  that  way  I  would  give  to  the  Government 
the  efficiency  and  ability  that  the  railroads  enjoy,  and  the  impartiality 
that  the  Government  ought  to  have. 

Then,  having  equipped  the  Government  with  a  department  for  in- 
quiry and  prosecution — a  department  whose  sole  duty  it  would  be 
to  inquire  and  prosecute — I  think  it  would  be  wise  to  create  a  sep- 
arate court  of  transportation,  giving  its  members  a  life  tenure  like  the 
present  judges  of  the  United  States  courts,  but  requiring  them  to 
devote  their  entire  time  to  railroad  cases.  I  would  construct  a  court 
taken  from  among  the  best  men  of  the  country,  with  lay  members, 
perhaps  from  some  of  these  railroad  men  who  are  so  experienced  in 
this  whole  complex  subject  of  rate  making,  and  give  to  that  court 
the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  transportation.  I  would  not  bother  it 
with  patents,  nor  with  chancery  mysteries,  nor  with  personal  injury 
cases,  but  I  would  make  it  incumbent  on  and  profitable  to  them  to 
study  the  whole  railroad  situation  as  if  they  were  the  servants  of 
the  road,  so  far  as  proficiency  was  concerned,  but  to  be  the  unbiased 
and  impersonal  servants  of  the  people  so  far  as  justice  was  concerned. 
Let  there  be  five  or  seven  judges.  Let  them  sit  together  in  Wash- 
ington and  separately  throughout  the  country.  Whenever  a  com- 


plaint  was  awaiting  investigation  a  judge  of  the  court  would  be  on 
hand  to  give  immediate  investigation. 

It  would  be  unnecessary  to  create  any  great  number  of  offices 
for  such  a  court.  The  clerks  of  the  United  States  courts  as  they 
now  exist  could  be  clerks  ex-officio  of  this  court.  The  marshals  of 
the  United  States  could  be  marshals  ex-officio  of  this  court.  The 
juries  assembled  at  every  point  where  United  States  Circuit  and  Dis- 
trict courts  are  sitting  could  be  made  interchangeable  with  juries  in 
the  courts  where  this  court  would  sit.  This  court  could  go  on  the 
circuit  individually,  member  for  member,  whenever  complaint  had 
been  made,  and  within  a  week,  two  weeks  or  three  weeks  at  most, 
after  this  executive  officer  of  the  Government  had  lodged  his  com- 
plaint, would  have  the  machinery  in  motion  that  would  bring  final 
judgment.  If  the  case  was  so  large  or  complex  that  it  ought  to  have 
the  judgment  of  the  whole  court  he  could  reserve  it  for  the  whole 
court,  and  within  a  month  the  whole  court  could  sit  at  some  central 
point,  such  as  Washington,  and  consider  the  case.  But  often  he 
could  dispose  of  it  himself,  as  your  judges  and  different  great  centres 
of  the  country  are  disposing  of  questions  just  as  large,  involving 
just  as  much  to  the  people  who  are  litigants. 

I  would  equip  the  court  with  all  the  powers  of  a  court  of  chancery 
to  enforce  its  judgments.  The  court  could  sit  en  bane  at  stated 
periods  to  hear  appeals  or  whenever  an  unusual  case  was  pressing  it. 
Rate  railroad  problems  could  be  decided  by  the  court  en  bane,  in  the 
first  instance,  instead  of  a  judge  individually.  There  would  be  ap- 
peals on  constitutional  questions  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  and  the  Supreme  Court  would  preserve  its  power  of  super- 
vision by  means  of  writs  of  certiorari,  such  as  now  prevail  in  the 
Circuit  Court  of  Appeals,  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  the  uniform- 
ity of  the  law. 

Such  machinery — a  department  to  investigate  and  prosecute,  and 
a  court  to  decide — would  give  the  shipper  what  he  has  not  now — a 
quick  apprehension  by  a  competent  department  of  any  given  wrong 
and  a  quick  adjudication  and  rectification  of  it  by  an  impartial  and 
competent  tribunal.  Such  machinery,  too,  would  give  the  country 
what  it  has  not  now — adequacy,  intelligence  and  uniformity  in  rate 
regulation.  My  suggestion  is  only  this:  Set  into  motion  machinery 
that  will  be  fair  to  the  public  and  the  railroads,  and  thus  do  some- 
thing toward  giving  the  country  equal  conditions  and  fair  rates. 

Let  me  suggest  to  my  railroad  friends  that  a  solution  so  simple 
and  so  effective  ought  to  be  made  the  policy,  not  simply  of  the  think- 
ing people,  who  are  not  interested  in  railroad  rates  except  as  look- 
ers-on, but  of  the  railroad  men  themselves.  The  greatest  aid,  the 
most  efficient  help,  to  the  socialistic  movement  that  seems  to  be 
spreading  over  the  country,  are  the  men  who,  having  possessed 
themselves  of  power  and  wealth  through  corporations,  refuse  to 

9 


submit  to  just  regulation  and  control.  Let  me  ask  you,  my  railroad 
friends,  not  to  balk,  not  to  obstruct,  not  to  be  content  to  find  fault; 
but  to  join  those  who  intend  to  be  fair  in  formulating  in  this  matter 
a  specific  proposal  that  will  meet  the  just  demands  and  expectations 
of  the  country.  Now  is  your  hour;  will  you  not  rise  to  its  responsi- 
bilities? 


Constitutional  Questions  Involved. 

(Reprinted  from  June  and  July,    1905,  issues  of  FREIGHT,  THE  SHIPPERS'  FORUM.) 

FREIGHT  asks  me  to  put,  in  a  few  words,  my  view  on  the  constitu- 
tionality of  the  railroad  rate  plan  proposed  by  me.  The  plan  is  sim- 
ple, and  its  constitutionality  can  be  put  in  a  few  words.  From  the 
time  the  occupation  of  common  carriers  began — a  long  time  before 
the  railroad  was  known — the  law  of  England  and  America  imposed 
this  duty:  That  the  rates  to  be  charged  by  common  carriers  should 
be  reasonable  and  just.  It  was  the  common  law  of  England,  in  this 
respect,  that  was  transferred  bodily  to  the  law  of  the  several  Ameri- 
can States.  And  it  was  the  same  common  law,  so  far  as  interstate 
commerce  is  concerned,  that  was  transferred  potentially  to  the  Fed- 
eral Government,  in  that  provision  of  the  Constitution  that  em- 
powers the  Federal  Government  to  regulate  interstate  commerce. 
No  lawyer,  I  think,  will  deny  this.  And  the  Interstate  Commerce 
Act  of  1887  expressly  recognizes  and  embodies  it.  It  will  thus  be 
seen  that  the  Federal  Government  'has  full  power  to  see  to  it  that, 
so  far  as  interstate  commerce  is  concerned,  the  rates  to  be  charged 
shall  be  reasonable  and  just. 

The  single  modification  of  this  immemorial  law,  irrvolved  in  the 
plan  proposed  by  me,  is,  that  while  at  common  law,  when  rates  ex- 
acted were  unreasonable  and  unjust,  it  was  only  the  shipper  who 
could  complain,  in  the  plan  proposed  it  is  the  Government  in  loco 
parens  that  can  intervene  as  the  representative  of  all  the  shippers. 
But  this  modification  is  not  new.  It  was  clearly  recognized  in  the 
railway  injunction  cases.  It  embodies  only  a  well  established  func- 
tion of  government.  And  it  was  re-enacted,  in  the  Elkins  Act,  into 
the  form  of  statutory  law.  Here  then  is  the  constituional  power,  to 
my  mind  clear  beyond  doubt,  for  a  department  or  bureau  that,  as 
representative  of  the  shippers,  will  inquire  and  prosecute;  and  a 
court  to  adjudge  and  to  put  its  judgment  into  execution. 

Indeed,  the  real  question  involved  in  this  discussion  is  not  a 
question  of  constitutional  law.  It  is  a  question,  rather,  of  fact,  viz., 
Would  the  plan  proposed  furnish  machinery  efficient  and  adequate? 
Would  it  bring  about  rates  reasonable  and  just?  Would  it  bring 
about  such  rates  without  delay? 

Let  me  answer  this  question  by  a  simple  illustration:  Suppose  a 
given  rate  between  Chicago  and  New  York  be  deemed  by  the  de- 

10 


partment  unreasonable  and  unjust;  suppose  that,  on  complaint  of 
the  Government,  this  rate  is  adjudged  by  the  court  to  be  unreason- 
able and  unjust — what  assurance  would  we  have,  under  the  plan 
proposed,  that  a  rate  reasonable  and  just  would  be  substituted?  The 
answer  seems  plain. 

To  determine  that  a  rate  is  unreasonable  and  unjust  the  court 
must  first  determine  what  rate  would  be  reasonable  and  just.  True, 
the  reasonableness  and  justness  of  rates  is  a  somewhat  variable  quan- 
tity, depending  upon  circumstance.  But  to  determine  whether  a 
departure  from  the  reasonable  rate  named  by  the  court  in  its  judgment 
is  justifiable  or  not  would  not  be  a  very  difficult  question;  and,  in 
the  absence  of  justification,  the  departure  could  be  so  penalised  that 
no  carrier  would  like  to  fly  in  its  face;  and  the  power  that  gives  to 
the  Government  the  right  to  forbid  a  rate  that  is  unreasonable  and 
unjust  includes  the  right  to  so  penalize  the  charging  of  an  unjust 
and  unreasonable  rate,  especially  after  knowledge  has  been  judicially 
brought  home  to  the  carrier  what  rate,  under  existing  circumstances, 
is  just  and  reasonable. 

With  the  right  man  at  the  head  of  the  department  and  the  right 
judges  in  the  court,  there  need  be  no  fear,  I  think,  on  the  part  of 
shippers  that  the  plan  will  be  inefficient,  and  no  fear  on  the  part  of 
the  carriers  that  it  will  work  injustice.  And  that  is  all  that  either 
party  in  this  discussion  has  the  right  to  expect. 

MAY  24,  1905.  PETER  S.  GROSSCUP. 

There  is  so  much  confused  thinking  on  what  is  called,  in  this 
matter  of  rate  making,  the  "legislative  function"  and  what  is  called 
the  "judicial  function"  that  perhaps  a  plain  statement  of  the  situa- 
tion, without  argument,  may  not  be  out  of  place. 

To  the  legislature — that  is,  to  Congress,  in  the  matter  of  inter- 
state commerce,  and  to  the  State  assemblies,  in  State  commerce — has 
been  committed  the  power  to  determine  rates,  subject,  of  course,  to 
the  limitation  that  the  railroads  are  not  thereby  deprived  of  their 
property  without  due  process  of  law.  This  power  may  be  exercised 
by  the  legislature  either  specifically,  by  the  fixing  of  specific  rates,  or 
generally,  by  providing,  as  the  common  law  now  provides,  that  no 
rate  shall  be  unreasonable.  When  the  legislature  chooses  to  fix  the 
rate  specifically,  the  function  of  the  court  is  confined  to  the  deter- 
mination of  whether  the  rate  so  fixed  is,  in  effect,  confiscatory.  But 
when  the  legislature  chooses  to  exercise  its  power  generally,  as  that 
rates  shall  not  be  unreasonable,  the  function  of  the  court  is  to  deter- 
mine whether  the  specific  rate  fixed  by  the  carrier  is  in  fact  within 
this  legislative  mandate;  for  only  in  this  way  could  an  individual 
obtain  his  right  under  law,  and  to  determine  individual  rights  under 
law  is  always  a  judicial  function. 

There  is  no  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  that,  reasonably  read, 
controverts  or  tends  to  controvert  this  view  of  the  law.  True,  there 

11 


are  decisions  that  the  legislature  has  the  power  to  fix  rates.  That 
I  have  already  stated.  True,  there  are  decisions  that  when  the  rates 
are  thus  specifically  fixed  by  the  legislature — as,  for  instance,  in  the 
Dakota  case,  3  cents  per  mile  for  passengers — the  function  of  the 
court  is  confined  to  determining  whether  the  mandatory  fixing  of 
such  rate  would  be  the  taking  of  property  without  due  process  of  law. 
That,  too,  I  have  already  stated.  But  there  is  no  case  that  holds  that, 
where  the  legislative  mandate  respecting  rates  is  confined  simply  to 
the  command  that  the  rates  shall  be  reasonable,  the  courts  are  with- 
out power,  in  administering  the  rights  of  individuals  under  the  law, 
to  determine  what  rate  is  reasonable  and  what  rate  is  not  reason- 
able. Indeed,  to  so  hold  would  be,  practically,  to  say  to  the  shipper, 
or  the  Government,  acting  in  loco  parens  for  the  shipper,  that  though 
under  the  law  the  shipper  had  a  right  to  a  reasonable  rate,  there  ivas 
no  power  in  the  courts  to  secure  to  him  such  right.  That  plainly 
would  be  an  absurdity. 

Let  the  distinction  not  be  lost  sight  of.  The  legislature  estab- 
lishes rights.  The  courts  enforce  them.  When  the  legislature  estab- 
lishes a  right  so  specifically  that  no  occasion  arises  for  the  court,  by 
external  inquiry,  to  determine  what  the  legislature  meant,  no  such 
inquiry  will  be  instituted.  But  when  the  right  established  is  so  gen- 
eral that,  except  through  external  inquiry,  the  court  would  be  in 
ignorance  of  what  was  the  specific  right  established,  as  applied  to  the 
case  in  hand,  the  inquiry  will  be  instituted.  And  an  inquiry  thus  in- 
stituted, though  executing  the  legislative  will,  is  the  exercise  of  a 
judicial  function.  P.  S.  GROSSCUP. 

CHICAGO,  June  27,  1905. 


PRESIDENT  HADLEY  FAVORS  SPECIAL  COURT. 

(From  the  paper  written   by  Arthur  T.  Hartley,    of    Yale,    and    copyrighted,    1905,    by    the 
Boston  Evening  Transcript.) 

While  Congress  could  undoubtedly  increase  the  powers  of  the 
Interstate  Commerce  Commission  if  it  wanted  to,  and  that  without 
any  serious  financial  damage  to  the  railroads,  it  is  improbable  that 
such  action  would  result  in  much  good  to  the  public. 

The  power  to  make  rates  for  the  traffic  of  the  United  States  is  too 
vast  a  thing  to  be  handled  by  the  machinery  of  the  Interstate  Com- 
merce Commission,  even  if  the  power  and  expense  of  that  machinery 
were  considerably  increased.  The  initiation  of  a  successful  rate  policy 
must  come  from  the  owner,  not  from  somebody  else  who  tries  to  con- 
trol the  action  of  the  owner.  Governments  have  been  sometimes  suc- 
cessful in  their  rate  making  when  they  operated  their  roads;  but  I  do 
not  know  a  single  instance  of  really  successful  rate  making  by  a  Gov- 
ernment which  attempted  to  control  roads  that  somebody  else 
operated. 

12 


If  we  put  our  rate  making  power  into  the  hands  of  the  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission  we  might  possibly  have  a  more  even 
schedule  than  we  have  at  present.  But  if  the  schedules  were  adhered 
to  it  would  unquestionably  mean  much  higher  rates  and  smaller  vol- 
ume of  traffic  than  we  now  enjoy;  and  if  it  were  not  adhered  to,  the 
evils  of  the  discriminations  which  all  men  who  have  studied  the  sub- 
ject regard  as  the  most  serious  evil  connected  with  railroad  rates 
would  tend  not  to  diminish  but  to  increase. 

The  appointment  of  a  special  railroad  court  seems  a  more  prom- 
ising means  of  dealing  with  our  difficulties  than  an  increase  of  the 
power  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission.  There  is  enough 
that  is  distinctive  in  railroad  cases  and  the  precedents  connected  with 
them  to  warrant  the  creation  of  a  body  of  judges  whose  learning  is 
to  be  specially  devoted  to  this  branch  of  the  law.  I  believe  that  the 
attempt  to  confine  the  activity  of  this  court  to  cases  already  decided 
by  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  would  prove  futile  and 
vexatious.  What  is  the  use,  say  the  opponents  of  such  a  court,  of 
arranging  to  have  every  question  decided  twice?  Why  not  have  the 
thing  done  all  at  once,  instead  of  introducing  an  additional  piece  of 
machinery  which  is  expensive  in  its  character  and  uncertain  in  its 
workings? 

The  objection  to  having  two  different  bodies  to  do  the  same  work 
twice  over  is  real  and  sound.  Given  a  body  of  men  who  are  neither 
judges  nor  technical  experts,  but  who  assume  to  perform  the  func- 
tions which  belong  both  to  judges  and  technical  experts,  you  are 
practically  certain  to  find  a  great  many  of  their  decisions  reversed. 

The  question  may  be  asked  whether  any  court,  however  well 
trained  its  members,  could  make  the  rules  which  we  need  for  the 
regulation  of  interstate  traffic  in  the  United  States.  It  would  doubt- 
less have  authority  to  declare  certain  rates  unreasonable;  but  could  it 
indicate  clearly  how  much  rates  would  have  to  be  reduced  in  order 
to  be  reasonable?  Could  it  make  negative  rules  which  would  result 
in  positive  reforms?  We  might  admit  that  these  reforms  would 
not  come  quite  so  fast  as  radical  reformers  desire;  but  I  believe  they 
would  come  more  surely  and  permanently  in  this  way  than  in  any 
other.  A  negative  rule  which  will  be  upheld  and  obeyed  is  a  good 
deal  better  basis  of  practical  reform  than  a  positive  rule  whose  au- 
thority is  uncertain. 

The  history  of  equity  jurisdiction  in  its  various  branches  shows 
that  when  the  higher  courts  of  any  country  have  really  made  up 
their  mind  to  get  certain  things  done  they  get  them  done;  and  that 
the  attempt  to  secure  the  same  result  faster  by  means  of  short  cuts 
creates  so  much  confusion  and  uncertainty  as  to  delay  the  very  con- 
summation which  it  has  been  intended  to  hasten.  The  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission  represents  just  such  a  short  cut;  and  I  con- 
fess that  I  see  no  indication  that  it  has  proved  or  is  going  to  prove 

13 


\ 

more  successful  than  most  other  experiments  of  the  same  sort.  Its 
members  wish  to  have  part  of  the  duties  of  a  traffic  manager  and 
part  of  the  authority  of  a  Federal  judge,  without  necessarily  having 
the  previous  experience  which  goes  with  the  successful  exercise  of 
either  function.  From  such  antecedent  conditions  I  do  not  see  how 
we  can  expect  successful  consequences. 

The  need  of  some  expert  authority  which  shall  represent  the 
court,  as  distinct  from  either  of  the  contending  parties,  becomes  verjr 
great.  Such  a  technical  commission  should,  I  think,  include  three 
men  who  were  trained  in  the  traffic  department  of  the  railroad  ser- 
vice, one  in  the  operating  department  and  one  in  the  financial  de- 
partment. It  would  not  be  necessary  or  even  desirable  to  include 
a  representative  of  the  shippers,  or  a  representative  of  the  legal  de- 
partment of  railroads.  The  presence  of  such  men  on  the  commission 
would  simply  obscure  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  intended — the4 
purpose  of  ascertaining  facts  needed  by  the  court  as  a  basis  for  its 
decision.  The  court  itself  would  be  competent  to  furnish  the  justice 
and  the  law. 

GROSSCUP  PLAN  INDORSED. 

A  large  number  of  indorsements  of  Judge  Grosscup's  plan  have 
been  received  by  FREIGHT  since  May  i.  Among  them  was  one  from 
J.  S.  George,  of  Hutchinson,  Kan.,  president  of  the  Kansas  Federa- 
tion of  Commercial  Interests.  He  wrote: 

Having  carefully  read  Judge  Grosscup's  plan  for  the  regulation  of  railroads, 
I  am  of  the  opinion  that  thus  far  nothing  better  has  been  offered  by  the  many 
writers  and  speakers  on  the  subject,  and  it  would  probably  be  as  well  to  try 
the  experiment  of  railroad  regulation  under  this  plan  as  any  other.  What  our 
shippers  and  producers  most  need  is  a  "short  cut"  to  justice  that  Will  prevent 
the  interminable  delays  that  the  railroads  heretofore  have  been  able  to  inter- 
pose in  actions  brought  against  them. 

I  take  pleasure  as  chairman  of  the  Hutchinson  Commercial  Club  in  signing 
the  resolutions  you  so  kindly  inclose  and  handing  them  to  you  herewith.  As 
president  of  the  Kansas  Federation  of  Commercial  Interests,  en^podying  in  ils 
membership  most  of  the  larger  shipping  interests  of  this  State,  I  also  earnestly 
indorse  the  work  you  are  doing. 

Arthur  F.  Francis,  secretary  of  the  Trans-Mississippi  Commercial 
Congress,  wrote: 

I  read  your  argument  and  also  the  arguments  of  Professor  Hadley  with  much 
interest,  and  will  cheerfully  submit  the  draft  of  the  resolution  to  the  executive 
committee  for  action.  Your  suggestion  is  along  the  line  of  the  work  of  this 
organization  for  several  years,  which  has  been  to  secure,  if  possible,  a  just, 
equitable  and  speedy  solution  of  this  question.  The  commercial  interests  of 
the  States  and  Territories  west  of  the  Mississippi  River  represented  by  this  or- 
ganization are  in  constant  peril  so  long  as  this  question  is  unsettled. 

Milo  Ward,  secretary  of  the  Commercial  Club,  of  Des  Moines, 
la.,  wrote: 

I  think  your  suggestion  the  be  t  yet.  This  matter  of  freight  rates  is  of  so 
much  importance  that  the  best,  the  most  practical  and  fairest  plan  should  be 

14 


worked  out.  If  it  is  not  fair  and  just  to  the  railroads  it  won't  stand,  as  you  sug- 
gest. For  this  reason  the  idea  which  you  advance,  namely,  that  commercial 
bodies  should  hold  a  convention  and  appoint  a  committee  to  confer  with  the 
committee  appointed  by  the  railroads  and  agree  upon  the  Grosscup  plan,  or 
a  better  one,  if  it  is  advanced,  seems  to  me  should  be  followed.  Thank  you 
for  all  the  information  given  us,  and  \ve  assure  you  of  our  interest. 

We  are  pleased  to  be  furnished  with  a  copy  of  your  views  upon  this  impor- 
tant question  of  the  day.  Inasmuch  as  you  have  made  a  careful  study  of  the  mat- 
ter your  opinion  constitutes  a  valuable  contribution  to  the  information  which 
\ve  have  accumulated. 

W.  S.  Tilton,  secretary  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  El  Paso, 
Tex.,  in  forwarding  the  resolutions  adopted  by  the  organization, 
wrote  as  follows: 

Our  transportation  committee  is  in  entire  accord  with  the  proposition  sought 
to  be  accomplished  by  continued  and  persistent  agitation  of  this  question  and 
embodied  in  this  resolution.  The  present  method  of  obtaining  relief  against 
unjust  and  unequal  rates  of  transportation  is  entirely  inadequate  and  in  many 
cases  futile. 

The  following  came  from  D.  H.  Merriam,  secretary  of  the  Fitch- 
burg  Merchants'  Association,  of  Fitchburg,  Mass.: 

The  plan  which  Judge  Grosscup  has  suggested  seemed  to  meet  the  approval 
of  our  members  and  the  resolutions  were  unanimously  adopted  at  the  last 
meeting. 

From  J.  Frank  Drake,  secretary  Springfield  Board  of  Trade, 
Springfield,  Mass.: 

The  Board  of  Trade  considered  this  question  (increased  supervision  of  the 
railroads  by  the  Government)  a  year  ago,  and  at  that  time  did  not  feel  that  it 
could  give  its  unqualified  indorsement  to  any  bill  that  was  then  before  Con- 
gress. 

Personally,  the  plan  outlined  by  Judge  Grosscup  seems  to  be  a  very  practi- 
cal one,  and  it  will  give  me  great  pleasure  to  bring  it  to  the  attention  of  the 
board  of  directors  at  their  next  regular  meeting. 

From  John  J.  Telford,  secretary  of  the  Louisville  Board  of  Trade: 

I  have  your  favor  on  the  subject  of  Judge  Grosscup's  method  of  settling  the 
transportation  problem.  If  this  could  be  done  legally  I  believe  it  would  settle 
ihe  v*'bole  question,  and  I  do  not  think  it  would  be  objectionable  to  the  railway 
companies.  I  have  read  your  articles  in  the  June  issue  with  a  great  deal  of 
interest,  and  would  like  to  compliment  you  on  the  paper  you  are  getting  out 
just  now. 

In  returning  the  resolutions,  signed,  G.  Wilson  Jones,  secretary  of 
the  Retail  Lumber  Dealers'  Association  of  the  State  of  New  York, 
wrote : 

We  are  greatly  interested  in  this  matter  and  hope  the  efforts  may  be  success- 
ful. 

FYom  Carr  W.  Taylor,  attorney  for  the  Kansas  Board  of  Railroad 
Commissioners : 

I  most  heartily  indorse  the  Judge  Grosscup  plan. 

George  F.  Mead,  president  of  the  National  League  of  Commis- 
sion Merchants,  wrote:  ''Your  measure  to  me  seems  a  good  one,  but 
wherein  does  it  reach  and  remedy  the  private  car  line  evil,  from  which 
the  members  of  our  association  suffer  so  severely?"  [This  was 
answered  editorially  in  the  May  issue  of  FREIGHT.] 

15 


In  acknowledging  the  receipt  of  FREIGHT'S  circular  letter  of  April 
22,  calling  attention  to  the  Grosscup  plan,  some  of  the  secretaries  of 
commercial  organizations  said  that  the  subject  would  be  brought  up 
for  discussion  at  the  annual  meetings  in  the  fall.  A  few  referred 
to  the  fact  that  their  associations  had  supported  the  Quarles-Cooper 
Bill,  so  considered  it  unwise  to  indorse  any  plan  except  one  on  simi- 
lar lines.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  two  of  the  largest  commer- 
cial organizations  in  the  country,  the  National  Manufacturers'  Asso- 
ciation and  the  Millers'  National  Federation,  which  last  year  adopted 
resolutions  favoring  the  proposed  increase  in  the  powers  of  the  In- 
terstate Commerce  Commission,  this  year  ignored  the  subject,  their 
resolutions  simply  dealing  with  the  question  of  rebates  and  dis- 
crimination. A  large  number  of  organizations  throughout  the  coun- 
try have  already  adopted  resolutions  indorsing  the  Grosscup  plan. 

Indorsed    by    Representative    Concerns    and    Individuals. 
About  the  middle  of  June,  to  ascertain  the  sentiment  of  shippers 
generally,  FREIGHT  began  sending  out  the  following  form  of  indorse- 
ment to  its  subscribers,  to  be  signed  by  the  recipient  in  case  the  plan 
met  his  approval: 

We.  the  undersigned  merchants,  jobbers,  manufacturers  and  shippers  of  the 

State  of  hereby  indorse  the  following  plan  put  forth  by  Judge  Peter  S. 

Grosscup,  of  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals,  for  settling  the  trans- 
portation problem  and  for  the  speedy  remedying  of  all  traffic  abuses :  Create  a 
transportation  department  of  the  Government;  this  new  department  to  have  the 
sole  duty  of  investigating  and  prosecuting  all  complaints  of  discrimination,  un- 
just rates  and  unfair  practices  of  every  description  by  the  railroads;  it  to  be  the 
duty  of  this  department  to  present  them  at  once  to  a  special  court  of  transpor- 
tation, the  judges  of  which  should  be  appointed  for  life  and  be  required  to  de- 
vote their  entire  time  to  railroad  cases;  the  judges  to  sit  together  in  Washing- 
ton and  separately  throughout  the  country,  so  that  complaints  would  be  re- 
ceived and  acted  upon  with  the  least  possible  delay ;  the  only  appeal  from  this 
court  to  lie  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  and  then  solely  on 
questions  of  law. 

This  plan  would  give  to  shippers  a  quick  apprenension  by  a  competent  de- 
partment of  any  given  wrong  and  a  speedy  adjudication  and  rectification  of  it 
by  an  impartial  and  competent  tribunal. 

Out  of  the  great  mass  of  correspondence  which  followed,  the  fol- 
lowing replies,  which  arrived  up  to  July  8,  are  selected  as  indicating 
the  wide  interest  felt  in  the  subject  by  prominent  commercial  houses: 
We  return  herewith  the  memorandum   inclosed   with    your    circular    letter, 
properly  signed. 

If  you  will  please  send  me  about  500  of  the  slips  relative  to  establishing  the 
transportation  department  of  the  Government  I  will  be  glad  to  have  them  sent, 
similar  to  yours,  to  all  the  members  of  the  National  Paint,  Oil  and  Varnish 
Association  and  the  Paint  Grinders'  Association  of  the  United  States. 

HEATH  &  MILLIGAN  MANUFACTURING  COMPANY, 

Chicago,  111.  Ernest  T.  Trigg,  General  Manager. 

We  are  in  receipt  of  your  letter,  inclosing  indorsement,  which  we  herewith 
return  to  you,  properly  signed.  S.  E.  WORMS  &  Co.,  Ltd. 

New  Orleans,  La. 

16 


\Ye  read  Judge  Grosscup's  article  in  the  June  issue  of  your  publication  and 
will  say  that  we  are  in  hearty  accord  with  this  movement,  and  we  inclose  here- 
with the  indorsement  properly  signed  by  us.  as  you  requested.  If  there  is  any- 
thing that  we  can  do  to  further  the  good  cause  we  would  be  very  glad  to  do  so. 
There  are  a  great  many  irregularities  in  the  freight  business  that  we  feel  should 
be  corrected.  THE  ADVANCE  LUMBER  COMPANY, 

Cleveland.  Ohio.  By  E.  B.  Smith. 

Your  plan  of  creating  a  transportation   department  of  the   Government  and 
referring  to  it  all  complaints  of  discrimination,  freight  rates,  etc.,  by  railroads, 
has  our  hearty  approval  and  I  have  signed  the  blank'  and  inclose  the  same. 
Cleveland,    Ohio.  F.   F.    PRENTICE, 

President  of  the  Cleveland  Twist  Drill  Company. 

We  have  your  esteemed  favor,  inclosing  article  by  Judge  Grosscup,   and  we 
beg  to  return  same  herewith    (signed)   and  wish  to  say  that  we  most  heartily  in- 
dorse the  same.  SIMONDS  MANUFACTURING  COMPANY, 
Chicago,  111.  W.  L.  Taylor,  Traffic  Manager. 

In  reply  to  your  letter  would  say  we  are  heartily  in  favor  of  Judge  Gross- 
cup's  proposition,  and  return  herewith  indorsement  with  our  signature,  as  re- 
quested. Hope  that  you  will  meet  with  success  in  your  undertaking. 

THE  CLEVELAND  HARDWARE  COMPANY, 
Cleveland,  Ohio.  W.  F.  Gibbons,  Sales  Manager. 

Replying  to  your  favor,  we  quite  agree  with  you  in  regard  to  the  proposition 
for  the  settlement  of  the  transportation  problem  and  believe  you  are  on  the  right 
path.  We  inclose  herewith  slip  signed  and  trust  it  may  be  the  means 
of  a  solution  of  this  kind,  which  woulS  undoubtedly  be  of  great  value  to  all 
concerns  who  are  shippers  of  freight. 

Thank  you  for  the  kindly  interest  manifested  in  the  matter  and  trust  it  may 
be  successful.  THE  ALDEN  RUBBER  COMPANY. 

Barberton.  Ohio. 

Your  favor  is  received,  and  in  compliance  with  your  request  we  herewith  re- 
turn the  petition  duly  signed.     We  believe  that  Judge  Grosscup's  idea  is  a  good 
one  and  the  sooner  this  matter  is  put  into  shape,  whereby  the  shipper  can  get 
relief  and  restitution,  the  better  it  will  be  for  the  shipper. 
Thank  you  for  bringing  this  matter  to  our  attention. 

THE  GLOBE  OIL  COMPANY, 
Cleveland.  Ohio.  C.  D.  Chamberlain,  Secretary. 

We  have  your  favor.  We  return  you  the  inclosure  duly  signed.  It  would 
be  a  great  benefit  to  all  shippers  if  this  could  be  put  through. 

THE  SOUTHWESTERN  LUMBER  &  Box  COMPANY, 
New  Orleans,  La.  Per  W.  Scott. 

In  reply  to  your  favor  we  inclose  blank  properly  filled  out.  We  believe  this 
is  along  the  right  lines  and  ultimately  will  have  its  effect  on  the  action  of  the 
railroad  companies  favorable  to  the  shipper.  E.  C.  ATKINS  &  Co, 

Indianapolis,  Ind.  H.   C.   Atkins,    President. 

Inclosed  please  find  signed  indorsement  of  the  transportation  problem  as  set 
forth  by  Judge  Peter  S.  Grosscup.  We  trust  that  this  plan  will  prove  very  suc- 
cessful in  the  solution  of  the  many  difficulties  relative  to  transportation. 

REGAL  SHOE  COMPANY,   Inc.. 

I-.ast   Whitman.   Mass.  Per  E.  P.  Bliss.  Treasurer. 

17 


In  compliance  with  your  favor,  we  are  very  glad  to  have  an  opportunity  of 
signing  and  returning  the  inclosed  petition  to  you. 

THE  FOREST  CITY  PAINT"  &  VARNISH  COMPANY, 
Cleveland,  Ohio.  W.  W.  Bowler,  President. 

Inclosed  find  our  petition.  We  most  heartily  indorse  it.  In  fact,  the  writer 
in  any  possible  \vay  will  be  glad  to  co-operate  with  you. 

J.  H.  NEUSTADT  COMPANY, 
St.   Lcuis,  Mo.  Per  J.  H.  Neustadt. 

Agreeable  with  your  favor,  we  are  glad  to  herewith  inclose  our  indorsement 
to  the  subject  of  which  you  speak. 

THE  OVERMAN  &  SCHRADER  CORDAGE  COMPANY. 
Covington,  Ky. 

In  response  to  your  circular  letter,  we  sign  and  return  the  Grosscup  circular 
herewith.  We  take  this  opportunity  of  expressing  our  special  appreciation  of 
the  article  in  your  May  issue  entitled  "Lumber  Overcharges  Hard  to  Col- 
lect." This  article  should  be  put  in  the  hands  of  every  lumber  shipper  in  the 
countiy.  THE  NICOLA,  STONE  &  MYERS  COMPANY, 

Cle\  eland,  Ohio.  •    A.   L.   Stone,  Secretary. 

Acknowledging  receipt  of  your  favor,  we  beg  to  advise  that  we  heartily  in- 
dorse the  plan,  which  we  have  read  carefully,  as  set  forth  by  Judge  Peter  S. 
Grosscup,  in  connection  with  tl«e  transportation  problem.  We  have  not  only 
read  Judge  Grosscup's  suggestion,  but  we  have  followed  other  writers  upon  this 
subject,  and  the  plan  that  he  advances  appears  to  us  to  be  desirable. 

Trusting  that  through  your  good  efforts  and  those  of  others  interested  in 
this  subject  an  adjustment  tray  be  reached  which  will  be  satisfactory  to  ship- 
pers as  well  as  to  the  transportation  companies. 

THE  HASEROT  CANNERIES  COMPANY, 
S.  F.  Haserot,  President. 

P.  S. — The  writer,  who  is  a  member  of  the  Cleveland  Chamber  of  Com- 
merce Freight  Committee,  and  who  is  also  chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Freight,  Express  and  Telegraph  Matters  of  the  National  Association  of  Pack- 
ers of  Pure  Canned  Foods,  will,  when  occasion  offers,  present  the  subject  to 
those  bodies. 
Cleveland,  Ohio. 

The  writer  is  personally  acquainted  with  Judge  Grosscup,  of  Chicago,  and 
has  great  respect  for  his  ideas  on  transportation  matters.  He  is  very  glad  in- 
deed to  sign  the  indorsement  you  ask  for,  and  the  same  is  returned  herewith. 

THE  JEFFREY  MANUFACTURING  COMPANY, 

Columbus,  Ohio.  N.   C.   Kingsbury. 

In  answer  to  your  valued  favor,  received  during  the  writer's  absence,  before 
leaving  for  my  Pacific  Coast  trip,  I  had  read  over  your  June  issue  and  the  ar- 
ticle referred  to.  We  inclose  herewith  your  form,  signed  as  you  request. 

THE  PLOM'O  SPECIALTY  MANUFACTURING  COMPANY, 
Cleveland,  Ohio.  S.   W.  Whitmore,  President  and  General  Manager. 

Referring  to  the  inclosed  (the  indorsement  of  the  Grosscup  plan),  which  I 
have  signed,  believing  that  it  covers  the  ground  more  fully  than  any  other  plan, 
will  say  that  while  we  are  not  antagonistic  to  the  railroads  we  should  have  some 
means  of  settling  just  propositions  and  not  to  be  held  up  as  we  are  upon  one 
pretense  or  another.  R.  L.  SPENCER, 

Texarkana.  Ark.  Manager  Texarkana  Freight  Bureau. 

18 


Inclosed  please  fincl  our  indorsement  of   plan    put    forth  by  Judge  Peter  §. 
Grosscup  with  reference  to  a  settlement  of  the  transportation  problem. 
New  York.  D.  AUERBACH  &  SONS. 

We  duly  received  your  letter,  inclosing  memorandum  of  plan  for  settling 
transportation  problem.  We  are  returning  same  herewith,  as  we  believe  this 
would  be  the  proper  solution  of  the  matter. 

THE   NATIONAL   SCREW   &   TACK    COMPANY, 

Cleveland,  Ohio.  C.  W.  Brainerd,  Secretary. 

In  answer  to  your  favor  you  will  please  find  inclosed  herewith  our  indorse- 
ment of  your  plai*  for  settling  transportation  problems.  After  carefuj  consid- 
eration it  seems  to  us  that  Judge  Grosscup's  plan  is  the  real  solution  of  the 
problem.  With  best  wishes  for  its  success, 

GEORGE  E.  KEITH  COMPANY, 

Campello,  Mass.  Transportation   Department. 

The  following  list  is  representative  of  many  different  lines  of 
trade,  and  is  composed  of  a  small  percentage  of  the  firms  and  indi- 
viduals who  indorsed  the  Grosscup  plan  in  the  three  weeks  ending 
July  8: 

AKRON,  OHIO. 

The  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Company,  manufacturers  soft  rubber  goods. 
A.  J.  Weeks,  manufacturer  stoneware. 

C.  S.  Eddy,  traffic  manager  the  B.  F.  Goodrich  Co.,  rubber  manufacturers. 
Swinehart  Clincher  Tire  &  Rubber  Company,  rubber  manufacturers. 
The  McNeil  Boiler  Company,  manufacturers  boilers,  tanks,  etc. 

ATLANTA,  GA. 
Gholstin-Cunningham  Spring  Bed   Company,  manufacturers  of  spring  beds,  etc. 

BARBERTON,  OHIO. 
The  Alden  Rubber  Company;  rubber  manufacturers, 

COLUMBUS,  OHIO. 
The  Jeffrey  Manufacturing  Company. 

PORTSMOUTH,  OHIO. 
H.  J.  Grimes,  grain. 

PORT  HURON,  MICH. 

Port  Huron   Engine  &  Thresher  Company,   manufacturers     engines,     separators 
and  farm  implements. 

BRUSHY,  MISS. 
The  D.  C.  Bacon  Company,  manufacturers  and  shippers  yellow  pine  lumber. 

BOSTON,  MASS. 

New  England  Confectionery  Company. 
The  George  James  Company,  sole  leather  and  cut  soles. 
Tremont  &  Suffolk  Mills,  Lowell,  Mass.,  cotton  manufacturing. 
Godfrey  L.  Cabot,  carbon  black  maker;  gas  and  oil  producer. 

BROCKTON,  MASS. 
George  E.   Keith   Company,   shoe  manufacturers. 

BROOKLYN,  N.  Y. 
E.  W.  Bliss  Company,  builders  of  machinery. 

BUFFALO,  N.  Y. 
H.  G.  Anderson  &  Co.,  grain. 

19 


CHICAGO,  ILL. 

Bradner  Smith  &  Co.,  paper  makers  and  jobbers. 

Simonds   Manufacturing   Company,   manufacturers. 

Heath   &  Milligan  Manufacturing  Company,  paint  and  color  makers. 

American   Matting   Importing   Company,  Ltd. 

Edward  G.  Davies,  commission  merchant. 

The  Acme  White  Lead  &  Color  Works,  paint  and  color  manufacturers. 

CINCINNATI,  OHIO. 

The  H.  Kruse  Show  Case  Company,  show  case  manufacturers. 

Merkel  Brothers,  plumbers',  steam  and  gas  supplies. 

Bender,  Streiberg  &  Co.,  fruit  and  produce  commission  merchants. 

John  Staun  &  Co.,  leaf  tobacco. 

The  Henderson  Lithographing  Company,  lithographing. 

Beech  Hill  Distilling  Company, 'wholesale  liquors. 

The  Hartwell  Furniture  Company,  furniture. 

J.  L.  Crosley,  wholesale  fruits. 

The  Charles  Barnes  Company,  builders  of  machinery. 

The  Alfred  Vogeler  Drug  Company,  wholesale  drugs. 

The  Globe- Wernicke  Company. 

The  Cincinnati  Grain  Company,  receivers  and  shippers  of  grain. 

Mayer,  Scheuer,  Offner  &  Co.,  manufacturers  of  clothing. 

I.  N.  Price  &  Co.,  wholesale  fruits  and  produce. 

CLEVELAND,  OHIO. 

Zone  Oil   Company,  manufacturers  lubricating  oils  and  paints. 

The  Kirk-Latty  Manufacturing  Company,  manufacturers  bolts,  nuts,  etc. 

The  Loew  Supply  &  Manufacturing  Company,  manufacturing. 

Weideman   Fries    Company,   jobbers  of  liquors. 

The  National  Refining  Company,  oil. 

The  Nicola,  Stone  &  Myers  Company,  wholesale  lumber. 

The  Forest  City  Paint  &  Varnish  Company,  manufacturers  paints  and  varnished 

The  Lamson  &  Sessions  Company,  manufacturers  bolts,  nuts,  etc. 

Britton    T.  &  S.  P.  Day,  manufa  turing  brokers  and  dealers. 

Cleveland  Co-Operative  Stove  Company,  manufacturers  stoves  and  ranges. 

The  Advance  Lumber  Company. 

The  Bigalow  Fruit  Company,  jobbers   fruits  and  produce. 

The  Acme  Machinery  Company,  manufacturers  bolt  and  nut  machinery. 

The  Cleveland  Gas  &  Electric  Fixture  Company,  manufacturers  gas  and  electric 

fixtures. 

The  Haserot  Canneries  Company,  canners  of  vegetables  and  fruits. 
The  North  Electric  Company. 
H.  E.  Higgins,  rolling  mill  and  steel  works. 
The  Globe  Oil  Company,  manufacturers  lubricating  oils. 
The  Cleveland  Hardware  Company,  manufacturers  of  vehicle  hardware. 
Guggenheimer  Brothers,  wholesale  liquors. 

The  Cleveland  Builders'  Supply  Company,  manufacturers  and  dealers  in  build- 
ers' supplies. 

The  Cleveland  Twist  Drill  Company,  manufacturers  of  twist  drills. 
Theodore  Kundtz,  sewing  machine  cabinet  manufacturing. 
The  Osborn  Manufacturing  Company,  brushes,  brooms  and  foundry  supplies. 
The  Newburgh  Brick  &  Clay  Co.,  manufacturers  of  brick  and  slate  products. 
The  Central  Lumber  Company,  wholesale  lumber. 
The  National  Screw  &  Tack  Company,  manufacturers  screws  and  bolts. 

20 


COVINGTON,  KY. 
The  Overman-Schrader  Cordage  Company,  cordage  manufacturers. 

DAYTON,  OHIO. 
National  Cash  Register  Company. 

DENVER,  COL. 
George  J.  Kindel,  manufacturer  of  upholstering  and  bedding. 

EAST  WHITMAN,  MASS. 
Regal  Shoe  Company,  manufacturers  shoes. 

INDIANAPOLIS,  IND. 

E.  C.  Atkins  &  Co.,  saw  manufacturers. 

KANSAS  CITY,  MO. 

J.  A.  Brubaker  &  Co.,  wholesale  grain  and  hay. 
Woolscy  &  Stahl  Hay  Company,  wholesale  and  commission  hay  and  grain. 

LITTLE  ROCK,  ARK. 
Dudley  E.  Jones  Company,  machinery  and  supplies. 

MOBILE,  ALA. 
Weiss-Eichold  Liquor  Company,  wholesale  liquor  dealers. 

NEW  ORLEANS,  LA. 

The  Grant  Furniture  Company,  retail  furniture. 
Leon  Frank,  wholesale  produce. 
J.  L.  Beer  &  Co.,  general  wholesale  produce. 

S.  E.  Worms  &  Co.,  Ltd.,  wholesale  furnishing  goods  and  notions. 
B.  Rosenberg  &  Sons,  shoe  dealers  and  manufacturers. 
Burkenroad  Wilcox  Company,  Ltd.,  paper  and  woodenware. 
Charles  Sugarman,  wholesale  produce.    . 
William  Dunn  &  Son,  lumber. 

The  Southwestern  Lumber  &  Box  Company,  manufacturing  lumber  and  staves. 
The  Parker-Blake  Company,  Ltd..  wholesale  druggists. 
Oscar  Gartner,  lumber  exporter. 
American  Matting  Importing  Company,  Ltd. 

NEW  YORK  CITY. 
Hagerty  Brothers  &  Co.,  glassware. 

F.  O.  Pierce  Company,  paint  manufacturers. 

The  Morton  B.  Smith  Company,  scrap  iron  and  steel,  old  metal. 
Lasher  &  Lathrop,  wholesale  paper. 

D.  Auerbach  &  Sons,  confectionery  manufacturers. 
Harrison  Granite  Company. 

George  A.  Swayze,  wholesale  lumber. 
Henry  D.  Hamilton,  lawyer. 

E.  Nichols,  adjuster. 

Mills  &  Gibb,  importers  and  manufacturers  of  dry  goods. 

E.  J.  Johnson  &  Co.,  roofing  slate  producers. 

E.  R.  Durkee  &  Co..  wholesale  spices,  etc. 

Butler  &  Kelley  Company,  manufacturers  of  fancy  cards. 

West  End  Manufacturing  Company,  coal  tar  products  and  paper. 

Standard  Table  Oil  Cloth  Company. 

21 


PHILADELPHIA,  PA. 
G.  F.  Wood,  Bement-Miles  Works  of  the  Niles  Bement  Pond  Company,  machine 

tools. 
Rosskam  Gerstley  &  Co.,  wholesale  liquors. 

PITTSBURG,  PA. 
Logan-Gregg  Hardware  Company. 
Wilson-Snyder   Manufacturing    Company,  pumping  machinery. 

ROCHESTER,  N.  Y. 

James  Cunningham  Sons  &  Co.,  carriage  builders. 
Schlegel   Manufacturing  Company,  manufacturers  textile  goods. 
Yawman  &  Erbe    Manufacturing  Company,   manufacturers   of   office   riling   de- 
vices. 

SAN  FRANCISCO,  CAL. 
Goldberg,  Bowen  &  Co.,  wholesale  and  retail  grocers. 

ST.  LOUIS,  MO. 

J.  H.  Neustadt  Company,  parts  for  automobile  builders. 

Kraushaar  Brass  Manufacturing  Company,  brass  makers  and  chandelier  manu- 
facturers. 

Weinheimer  &  Opp,  leaf  and  tobacco  dealers. 

Roth-Homeyer  Coffee  Company,  coffees,  teas  and  spices. 

Lambert  Pharmacal  Company,  manufacturers  of  listerine,  etc. 

Gerber  Fruit  Company,  wholesale  fruit  and  produce. 

J.  G.  Haas  Soap  Company,  manufacturers  of  soap  and  sal  soda. 

Columbia  Pretzel  &  Baking  Company,  bakers. 

Medart  Patent  Pulley  Company,  manufacturers  of  power  transmission  machin- 
ery. 

E.  C.  Robinson  Lumber  Company,  retail  lumber. 

J.  D.  Streett  &  Co.,  oils,  railroad,  mill  and  mine  supplies. 

Benbow-Brammer  Manufacturing  Company,  manufacturers  of  washing  ma- 
chines. 

L.  Garvey,  president  Fruit  &  Produce  Exchange. 

SYRACUSE,  N.  Y. 
Kelsey  Heating  Company,  manufacturers  warm  air  heaters. 

TOPEKA,  KAN. 
Carr  W.  Taylor,  attorney  for  Kansas  Board  of  Railroad  Commissioners. 

WATERTOWN,  N.  Y. 
Farwell  &  Rhines,  merchant  millers. 

WICHITA,  KAN. 

Boyle  Commission  Company,  car  lots  fruits  and  produce. 
Jett  &  Wood,  wholesale  grocers. 


22 


Recognized  Mouthpiece  of  the 
Shipping  Public 


The  only  publication  in  the  country  solely  devoted  to  the  shipping  inter- 
ests of  manufacturers,  jobbers  and  consumers. 

Its  Departments  are  replete  every  issue  with  original 
special  matter  by  experts,  indispensable  to  every  busi- 
ness man. 


ITS  LEGAL  DEPARTMENT 

contains  complete  digests  of  all  decisions  of  Federal  and  State 
Courts  bearing  on  Interstate  and  Intrastate  Commerce.  This  alone 
is  worth  many  times  the  price  of  subscription. 


Digests  of  all  Decisions  of  the  Inter- 
state Commerce  Commission 


Expert  advice   on   traffic   and   legal   questions   free   to  subscribers. 
Thousands  of  the  leading  firms  of  the  country,  already  subscribers,  attest 
the  great  value  of 

FREIGHT,  THE   SHIPPERS'   FORUM 

Subscription  price,  $3.00  a  year.     Sample  copy  sent  on  request 


FREIGHT  PUBLISHING  CO.,  Publishers 
1  1  6  Nassau  St  ,  New  York  City 


w 

n 

00 

5' 


n 


C/i 


P 

p5 

S 

P 

00 

S 

<T>          r-h 

•~t      jj 

3' 

r> 

ni 

rt- 

2. 

>-t 

G. 

00 

3    H 

Q 

^^^ 

p« 

H 

P 

i 

P 

5T 
o 

0 

P 

rD     Cf 

3      P 

00 

5 

rr\ 

M 

H 

5' 

3 
P 

O 

r-t- 

o* 

^ 

P 

3 
rD 

cr 
n> 

CO 

CL 
0 

o 
P 

00 
CD 
00 

r-f- 

3" 

rD 

cL 

O> 
00 

nirt  of  transportatic 

g 

1 

^' 
*O 

3 

0 

o' 
o> 

00 

0 

H~K 

portation  problem 
this  new  departm 

o> 

cT 
5' 

P 

3 

;,  the  undersigned 

PPERS' 

P 

o 

K 

3 

r-t- 

>£) 

C 

3* 

O 

J3 

El     3 

*§ 

3 

0) 

cr 
x 

00 

cr 

^5' 

^ 

00 

§ 

00 

ft" 

3" 

rT 

00 

00 

O 

°s 

c' 

CL 
rD 

p- 

J? 

ft- 

rD 
n 
o 
3- 
P 
3 

fh 
C/) 

m 
0 

oa 
3 

P 

3 

(T> 

s. 

sr 

00 

cr 
rT 
p. 

3- 

5' 
P 

rD 

00 
O 

t-K 

3* 
o' 

2. 

6* 

cr 

ro     ro 

a  s 

8  x 

rT    ^ 

rD 

cr 

«  —  i 
C 

CfQ 
rD 

hj 

"o* 

cr 

cr 
o> 
•-t 

00 

Sfl 

c 

S 

1 

3D^ 

& 

rc> 

00 

*-J 

3- 

r^  .     3 

19 

3 

S 

sr 

3* 

5' 

S- 

0 

0) 

>-t 

p 

3      ""* 
O      Cj' 

>-$ 

CD 

c 

sr 

^ 

3 

»—  * 

3" 

o 

tr~* 

"i 

0 

pMBl 

f\\ 

O 

0 

00 

o' 

0 

3 

P 
3 

cr 

o 

c^ 

5'   o^ 

Q 
o 

r-t- 

c 

*-t 

^^^ 

s. 

r^ 

3 

«^r* 

£3 

^  * 

r^       P 

oo 

00 

k^  ^^ 

00 

fP 

cr 

P 

00 

*T3 

i_i. 

i-".      •""" 

o 

P 

^^^ 

3 

rD 

9. 

r~t' 

CTQ       (-f- 

£ 

3 

S«^ 

fr 

r-t- 

P 

o> 

12 

3" 

O 

&.     ^ 

"p 

P. 

EP 

^4» 

£L 

P 

ro 

cr 

3      ^ 

o 

CO 

^0 

o* 

O 

P- 

n> 

C*Q      o 

I-H 

c»- 

^A 

3 

o 

r-  ^ 

3* 

cr 

r-t- 
3" 

n> 

P- 

3     cr 

oo 

rt- 

cr 

rD 

00 

g 

o 
3 

3 

ct 

•-t 

o 

£+> 

C 

^    2 

"""I            • 

^ 

o 

S 

o 

r-t- 

CL 

oo' 

o 
0 

orq 

P 

s, 

§   n 

o      -» 

rT 

cr 
n» 

wQ 

o 

M 

c 

O 

p> 

ci     r\ 

^^^ 

P 

3 

p-t- 

o 

r-t- 

3" 

rf 

1 

3'    rT 
^      p 

CO 

i-f- 

<T> 

• 

0 

,    . 

rD 

^ 

s* 

£L    «-•• 

00 

3 

r-t 

S. 

rB* 
i-t- 
O 

o 

0 

c 

^5 
g 
•T 

^ 
p 

"""    P 

0      3 
O      oo 

n 

O 

2 

*"J 

3 

rt> 

g 

3  ^ 

O 

• 

^IH 

£3 

3^ 

"i 

1—  i-» 

•^ 

^   S 

>-•  • 

^r^B 

3 

n> 

cn 

X 

oo 

0 

3 

r-f- 
<-+- 

g:  g 

? 

N^ 

B 

°s. 

C 

O 

s* 

° 

in       S' 
|-*t 

1—  t 

• 

N4 

3 
^ 

reme 

31 
P 

r-t- 
O 

o 
n> 

1 

o 

M-»        P. 

Bt  | 

o 

w-» 

O 

O 

0 

0 

£- 

5- 

o     S 

P-* 

Mi 

N*N 

GTQ 

0 

3 

rp 

rt- 

2.    3 

3.  g 

rc 

H 

ft- 

^ 

n> 

p^  . 

^i 

« 

3 

o 

3' 

3 

. 

3        r-t- 
P 

^00 

* 

P 

o> 

00 

I' 

P 

0 

£  o 

o    ^ 
p    ^ 

rT 

H 

oo 

3 

0 

r-t- 
§' 

3 
n 
n> 

c 

5.   O 

oo 
m 

r-h 

3* 
n> 
•i 

a 

rD 

*—  *  • 

_^  *   f-\ 

}T^ 

rD 

fe|H^ 

P- 

n> 

cr 

r-f 

c     w 

3 

cr 

^5n 

P* 

rD 

O 

«-t-        1 

OQ 

